He has received widespread praise for his civil, articulate approach to controversial issues and his respectful dialogue with opponents. Many who are recognized as married do not make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, as is suggested by Gallagher's comments about the difficulties posed by infidelity, but she does not discuss whether those people are therefore not married in the true sense.
Mark Darrell Lock john corvino same sex marriage in Whyalla. Different-sex individuals have not refused to marry nor refused to remain married just because same-sex couples are also permitted to marry. He also rightly notes that recognizing same-sex marriage need not and has not led to the parade of horrors sometimes described by same-sex marriage opponents.
Calculated Surprises Johannes Lenhard. Added to PP index Total views 20of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 1of 2, How can I increase my downloads? This item is printed to order. Choose your country or region Close. The fact that considered moral views, and not animosity, are at the root of their beliefs, will matter not at all.
Marriage, Autonomy, and the Feminine Protest. What he gives no credence is her account of her own side. Lock of Macomb Township, Mich. What Marriage is For 2.
Several prominent opponents of same-sex marriage have expressed respect for Corvino, albeit still disagreeing with him, and LGBT rights activists have commended him for engaging the other side with patience and geniality.
Wayne State University. Corvino attended St.
Corvino—who is openly gay—has written, debated, and lectured extensively on gay rights  and frequently debates with opponents of same-sex marriage , including Maggie Gallagher , the former head of the National Organization for Marriage , and Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family.
The understandings of marriage and family have undergone a transformation and Gallagher's implicit views emphasizing the importance of parents raising their own biological children simply do not capture current understandings or practices. Corvino, a philosopher, devotes part of his essay to exposing the logical flaws in his opponents' positions.
The authors take the time to lay out their best arguments, then respond to the best arguments of their opponents. But at least two points should be made. While the arguments are not new, the non-contentious tone of their exchange is most welcome, especially because many of the issues discussed here will remain the basis of bitter dispute for the foreseeable future.